- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi Adam,
You say
“And all I ever did was point out a translation error concerning John 1.18!! (Obviously, “the only-begotten god” translation is important to you for your own theological reasons.):”What you did was to make unsubstantiated assertions which you now are thankfully prepared to support. Without such support we can only conclude that there is corruption in the bible that we are not to be informed about and that you will keep to yourself. To do so is to cast doubt on every verse.
I have no need to select certain translations but, as I have pointed out this is a valid manuscript based verse in the NASB.
Hi Adam,
Not all would agree with the deifinition given here that mongenes JUST means unique.
Besides uniqueness does not specify ONLY in number but ONLY in TYPE as ONE OF A KIND [as stated in the second quote below!!]
And the Son of God is unique as different in some ways from God and from all other beings.Your quoted expert said
“By definition there can be only one monogenes: the word means “unique, ” “one of a kind.” The problem, of course, is that Jesus can be the unique God only if there is no other God; but for the Fourth Gospel, the Father is God as well. Indeed, even in this passage the monogenes is said to reside in the bosom of the Father. How can the monogenes theos, the unique God, stand in such a relationship to (another) God?”
and
“The difficulty with this view is that there is nothing about the word monogenes itself that suggests it. Outside of the New Testament the term simply means “one of a kind” or “unique,” and does so with reference to any range of animate or inanimate objects.”Hi Adam,
So having said it is one of the oldest and commonest forms the writer, because he cannot accept it within his theological framework accuses the translators.
He attacks the messenger.The quote:
“Why then was the text changed? … Here the character of our witnesses cannot be overlooked. In the early period, when the reading was beginning to establish itself in the Alexandrian tradition, it is found not only in Greek manuscripts, but also among a variety of Alexandrian writers, both orthodox and Gnostic.”Hi Adam,
Your quote
“The error here is with the idea of multiple “gods.” … John 1:18 makes no sense in the NASB unless it refers to multiple, separate “gods.” In fact, the verse contradicts itself. In the NASB, it is clear from the language that two individual beings are described here, the invisible “God” and the visible “God.” Both are called “God.” “No man has seen God” refers to the unseen God. But, the words, “the only begotten God” refer to the one who has been seen by men. Literally understood, the NASB is speaking of two distinct “Gods,” one visible and one invisible. Furthermore, the use of “only begotten” (mono-genes) with “God” (theos) implies birth or reproduction of the second “God” by the first “God.” The NASB's rendering here is absolutely ridiculous and completely heterodoxical.”Trinitarians are terrified of even suggesting there are more than our God in scripture. They take great pains to ensure all references to God are to their triune concept of God despite asserting the deity of Christ[but not apparently the Spirit].
What they will not accept is that in the view of God there are no other gods that compare, but scripture still liberally applies the term 'god' ,at times to sons of God and even men. So any liklihood of finding truth among those paranoid about polytheism is false.
Hi Adam,
Is the word monogenes [only begotten]the same as the word “begotten”. Surely not. Then this creates a false impression here“John no doubt had the second Psalm in mind when using the expression, “only-begotten Son.”
Psalm 2:7
7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
(KJV)”Hi Adam P,
Ps 45 and Heb 1 calls Jesus “god”. So this is a valid appellation.The manuscript evidence is very useful.
Thanks.Hi Adam Pastor,
Can you reassure us that there are not further unrevealed skeletons in your theological cupboard-doubts about the scriptures written by John or others?
Any further gnostic influence you see there?
If there are then surely now is the time to post them.Hi Malcolm,
You said
“Jesus must be fully God – yes – for man cannot save us – God alone is Saviour”By this you are implying that the Son of God worked in his own power.
But he emptied himself and came as we are.
We are not born with divine power.
Neither was the son of Man.
God saves through him.Hi Nick
No I am not
I am saying God was IN Him doing the work
So as those prophets before him (whom the Word of God came to were gods)
or God to the people – His representative
And they all showed forth this principle in a measure – in part.So Jesus Christ was God to us – and on His behalf – saved us all.
And we find he was without measure represented in His son Jesus.
That in him all the fulness of godhead dwelt.Hi Malcolm,
Is the vine a God to the branches?I think Jesus made it very clear that there were two involved in every aspect of his ministry and he attributed all the instigation and use and source of the powers that he used to the Father within him.
He never said he was God to us so why should we do so?
He is not God – period
But He is the visible image of the invisible God.
He said – I and my Father are one (not I am my Father)
He said – If you see me you see the Father…
He said – no man comes to the Father but by me.And at a time in the future every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord to the Glory of God the Father
Hi,
The bible speaks very clearly about God.
God is the Father of Jesus and the creator and the source.
In trinity eyes God is a trinity but all do agree that such is not written there.
Their trinity is not derived directly from bible teaching but they say they can understand God such much better if they apply the trinity doctrine to the bible.
God is mentioned 2000 or more times in the bible and they agree that almost all of those references are to the Father.
None of the references to God are to the trinity God which seems a little odd so they tell us which they think apply to other persons.
The trinity God concept, which is so vital to them, does not seem to have the same importance to God either which adds more mystery.
No one prays to a trinity God but some pray to deities they say are not gods, as God.
To each their own I suppose but it does seem a rather hollow and worthless intellectual exercise overall.JESUS our JEHOVAH
JEHOVAH isI AM EXODUS 3:14
JESUS isI AMJOHN 8:57& 58JEHOVAH isFIRST & LASTISAIHA 44:6, 48:12
JESUS isFIRST & LASTREV 22:12,13,20 1:8 MICAH 5:2JEHOVAH isROCKDEUT 32:4
JESUS isROCK1 COR 10:4JEHOVAH isKINGISAIHA 33:22
JESUS isKINGREV 19:11-16JEHOVAH isCREATORISAIHA 40:28
JESUS isCREATOREPH 3:9 JOHN 1:3 COL 1:16JEHOVAH isSAVIOURISAIHA 33:22, 43:11,12
JESUS isSAVIOURACTS 4:12 MATH 1:21 LK 2:11JEHOVAH isJUDGEISAIHA 33:22
JESUS isJUDGEJOHN 5:22Jer 23:5-6 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch (Jesus), and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD (Yhovah)OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.NH
Quote Hi CB,
All the parallels you can find do not prove the Son is also his own Father. Wake up!NH. You're still thinking as an Arian. The Bible says there are Three. Each uses the name Jehovah.
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Jehovah the Father. Jehovah the Son. Jehovah the Holy Ghost.
Holy! Holy! Holy! (Isaiah 6:3)
Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
The phrase “O God” is a worshipful phrase indicating the reverence each Person of the Godhead have one for another. Each recognises the other as their God.
Heb 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
